Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)

How do multi-layer jawbreakers act like washing up bubbles?

Maybe because that's an analogy. No need to ask me any further questions.

Well, I suppose that depends on how clear your diagrams are.

Never clear enough for people like you.

Tell me what would happen if the worlds strongest pump was attached to that glassware?

Interesting you say that.    What we call a vacuum pump only has to be able to move a cylinder against a small pressure of 15 pounds per square inch.

Highly effective vacuum pumps do NOT require strength.  What they require is the ability SOMEHOW to gain access to the available material where  an ordinary pump has ZERO ability to attract material to the vacuum pump.

Vacuum pumps do not suck.   Instead the material finds its own way into the pump - or does not.

Again: no holes in metal. Many holes in denpressure hypothesis.

Quote from: fliggs on August 27, 2016, 01:05:55 AM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 27, 2016, 12:33:39 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on August 27, 2016, 12:27:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 03:22:06 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on August 26, 2016, 02:51:35 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 07:17:19 AM

Now tell me what this means.
Nobody has to see a substance called inertia, or be able to smell inertia.   They just need to read about the properties of objects which are associated with usage of that word.
What properties?

I could just as accurately say:
"Nobody has to see a substance called pressure, or be able to smell pressure.   They just need to read about the properties of objects which are associated with usage of that word."
or
"Nobody has to see a substance called velocity, or be able to smell velocity.   They just need to read about the properties of objects which are associated with usage of that word."

Inertia is a measure of the effort that must be put to change the velocity of an object, that is its acceleration.

For an object moving in a straight line, Inertia is just the mass  (symbol m) of the object.

For a rotating object (like a flywheel), Inertia is a measure of the effort that must be put to change the angular velocity of the object,
and this rotational inertia is called the moment of inertia (symbol I).

If you weren't allergic to equations or maths, I could refer you to: Rotational-Linear Parallels,
where you would find that, in the absence of other forces (such as friction)
          force = mass x acceleration and
          torque = (moment of inertia) x (angular acceleration),
but since you have this aversion to anything involving calculation, I won't bother!

You know you have a totally impractical view of the world. Your job might let you ignore equations and mathematics but many people cannot do that.

Can you imagine the designers of aircraft trying to use your ideas in calculating the lift and drag of an aircraft wing from all the variables involved?

No, in the real world, calculations and equations are quite necessary, and your denspressure ideas just do not work!

Do you wonder that I can't see any logic in your ideas?

Nope, I don't wonder why you can't see logic in my ideas. I'm well versed in the way people like you work. Your aim is not to understand anything other than what you're programmed to understand.

So basically you can tell me as many times as you want to how denpressure doesn't work or is wrong, whilst magical made up bullshit like gravity and inertia, etc is right and I'll respond like this or not at all.

Clearly you have never done anything that required actual calculations. Well I have and your airy-fairy ideas just don't cut it in the real world.
As I said before however could aircraft be designed if the designers didn't use equations (yes, the ones from the kinetic theory of gases, etc) to calculate lift and drag.

Just explain how your denspressure ideas can be used to determine the lift and drag coefficients of a Clark-Y airfoil (one of the oldest) as a function of angle of attack.

Designers in the real have much more complex calculations than that to do when they get onto supersonic and hypersonic flow.

You just bury you head in the sand and pretend these things don't exist.

Rabinoz, I appreciate your efforts here but I think it is best to focus energy on his claim what we call inertia is a made up magical fairy thing.

talking about denpressure is going to go nowhere at all when it can be shown he is blatantly lying about his claim he does not know the meaning of the word inertia.

Technically, he may not be lying. Lying implies intent. It also implies a degree of rationality. I know you think I am harsh, but he is a paranoid schizophrenic to whom all his idiotic ideas and inconsistencies actually make a form of 'sense'. He probably both understands and doesnt understand inertia all at the same time. Mental illness defies logic.

Given a psychiatric examination, I predict he would be diagnosed as above or something similar. He certainly would not get a clean bill of health.

I am not convinced he is so mentally ill, and I do not see examples of him being paranoid, he seems to have a quite healthy ability to withstand being attacked.  In any case whether he lies consciously or unconsciously the same sort of route to his treatment is going to be used.    I know there are theories that say many forms of mental illness cannot be treated but i regard them only as theories, where it is clear there are many practicing pyschotherapists who are prepared to take on schizophrenics for a very long term treatment program and apparently there are many successful outcomes, at least in terms of the client being able to better adjust to reality than they could before the treatment began.  Schizophrenia might be a learnt behaviour where the person has experienced very difficult to solve situations where rather than confronting the mixed messages being imposed upon them, they find it easier to escape into a private reality world.   Sceptimatic seems grounded in reality in some of the areas that create most difficulty for this forum.  For example it is totally obvious he understands what inertia means but he just lies he does not.     So that is saying something about sado masochism before it says anything about being out of touch with reality.

Sceptimatic behaves in a very child like manner.  Like a child he thinks he can say anything at all and the adults around him are not going to realise what he is up to.   That kind of behaviour is not really what is called mental illness but is just missed developmental stages creating difficulties in what chronologically are his adult years.

Your last sentence is indeed intriguing! You have observed the regressive/childish attitudes he often displays. While not fully regressive, there are elements of that in his behaviour. The principle cause of regression to the younger adult, teen, child or even infant self is failed developmental stages that manifest for a variety of reasons or worse, are fundamental to overall behaviour. However, I will still go with my original diagnosis which admittedly is based on small amounts of data. Schizophrenics are still sometimes capable of very high-level thinking (Beautiful Mind anyone?) and can often 'baffle with BS'.

But a fascinating insight from you just the same!

Quote from: markjo on August 26, 2016, 08:48:39 PM

How do multi-layer jawbreakers act like washing up bubbles?

Maybe because that's an analogy. No need to ask me any further questions.

Quote from: markjo on August 26, 2016, 08:48:39 PM

Well, I suppose that depends on how clear your diagrams are.

Never clear enough for people like you.

So stop with analogies and give us concrete models. By that I dont mean models made of concrete!

I spent an hour online last night going through microscopic pictures of metal. I have not found a single one that is porous. No matter how far you zoom in.

I would say that either you produce a picture of steel with tiny holes or your theory is busted.

My theory cannot be busted because it's the truth.
You merely saying you've looked through metals is simply one hell of a frenzied attempt to try and give credence to what you're saying.
I gave you pictures of porous metals.
Maybe you were looking at Lead or gold. If that's the case then you will struggle to see much porousity. It's why they're so dense and weigh more than others.


I'm gonna try and give you a chance and let's see if you can answer this in a honest way.

We have two chocolate bars that appear exactly the same. When you lift one up it feels heavier than the other.
When you weigh them both, they differ in weight.

You cut open both bars to find that one is almost solid looking (by eye) chocolate all the way through and the other one is like the insides of an  aero or wispa.


Ok a question.
Why did one weigh more than the other?

Quote from: Omega on August 27, 2016, 01:31:57 AM

I spent an hour online last night going through microscopic pictures of metal. I have not found a single one that is porous. No matter how far you zoom in.

I would say that either you produce a picture of steel with tiny holes or your theory is busted.

My theory cannot be busted because it's the truth.
You merely saying you've looked through metals is simply one hell of a frenzied attempt to try and give credence to what you're saying.
I gave you pictures of porous metals.
Maybe you were looking at Lead or gold. If that's the case then you will struggle to see much porousity. It's why they're so dense and weigh more than others.


I'm gonna try and give you a chance and let's see if you can answer this in a honest way.

We have two chocolate bars that appear exactly the same. When you lift one up it feels heavier than the other.
When you weigh them both, they differ in weight.

You cut open both bars to find that one is almost solid looking (by eye) chocolate all the way through and the other one is like the insides of an  aero or wispa.


Ok a question.
Why did one weigh more than the other?

So asking somebody to consider why chocolate filled with air is lighter than solid chocolate is going to prove what?

Why did one weigh more than the other?

MASS! You dunce.

Objects with a higher mass attract more and are attracted more.

Two objects with the same volume but different sensity will have a different mass.

A brick of lead has a higher density than a piece of wood of the same dimensions.

The atoms in lead are packed much more tightly than the atoms in wood.

If you say the holes in lead are so small they they can't be detected, how do you know they are there?

Depending on the structure you see would depend on how the jaw breakers are sized and layered.

The peeled layers between them would be tiny jaw breakers with much less layers of make up.
It all depends on where in the Earth they are and under what force of pressure or energy force of expansion.

So there are tiny jaw breakers between the "main" jawbreakers?

Interesting you say that.    What we call a vacuum pump only has to be able to move a cylinder against a small pressure of 15 pounds per square inch.

Move a cylinder?
Explain what you mean by move a cylinder?

Highly effective vacuum pumps do NOT require strength.

So all evacuation pumps are the same strength then; is this what you're saying?

  What they require is the ability SOMEHOW to gain access to the available material where  an ordinary pump has ZERO ability to attract material to the vacuum pump.

Gain ACCESS to the available material?

Vacuum pumps do not suck.   Instead the material finds its own way into the pump - or does not.

Tell me how it finds its way into the pump.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 27, 2016, 01:49:33 AM

Quote from: Omega on August 27, 2016, 01:31:57 AM

I spent an hour online last night going through microscopic pictures of metal. I have not found a single one that is porous. No matter how far you zoom in.

I would say that either you produce a picture of steel with tiny holes or your theory is busted.

My theory cannot be busted because it's the truth.
You merely saying you've looked through metals is simply one hell of a frenzied attempt to try and give credence to what you're saying.
I gave you pictures of porous metals.
Maybe you were looking at Lead or gold. If that's the case then you will struggle to see much porousity. It's why they're so dense and weigh more than others.


I'm gonna try and give you a chance and let's see if you can answer this in a honest way.

We have two chocolate bars that appear exactly the same. When you lift one up it feels heavier than the other.
When you weigh them both, they differ in weight.

You cut open both bars to find that one is almost solid looking (by eye) chocolate all the way through and the other one is like the insides of an  aero or wispa.


Ok a question.
Why did one weigh more than the other?

So asking somebody to consider why chocolate filled with air is lighter than solid chocolate is going to prove what?

If you had a bit more  about you, you'd grasp why I'm saying it. It's not my problem that people like you refuse to even dare to understand it all. You're terrified to look to appear to understand it for fear of being attacked by your own side.
Look what they're trying to do with Jane and she's simply trying to grasp it all, not adhere to it.
Jane is stronger than you lot. She's doing it to understand and will not suffer peer pressure to do otherwise.

MASS! You dunce.

 

Objects with a higher mass attract more and are attracted more.

How?....Fictional gravity?

Two objects with the same volume but different sensity will have a different mass.

I don't know how sensitive they are or what that means with what you're saying.

A brick of lead has a higher density than a piece of wood of the same dimensions.

The atoms in lead are packed much more tightly than the atoms in wood.

If you say the holes in lead are so small they they can't be detected, how do you know they are there?

How do you know they're not?

Also Lead would be one dense piece of matter than is much more close to being extremely LESS porous.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 04:23:25 PM

Depending on the structure you see would depend on how the jaw breakers are sized and layered.

The peeled layers between them would be tiny jaw breakers with much less layers of make up.
It all depends on where in the Earth they are and under what force of pressure or energy force of expansion.

So there are tiny jaw breakers between the "main" jawbreakers?

I'm done with you.

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 27, 2016, 02:20:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 04:23:25 PM

Depending on the structure you see would depend on how the jaw breakers are sized and layered.

The peeled layers between them would be tiny jaw breakers with much less layers of make up.
It all depends on where in the Earth they are and under what force of pressure or energy force of expansion.

So there are tiny jaw breakers between the "main" jawbreakers?

I'm done with you.

I think the feeling is mutual. You are more than a dunce. Your theories has more holes then the holes you claim exist in metal and which dont. And 'porous metals' are not actually porous metals at all. they are metals in a porous configuration. The difference is huge and one that you could not possible comprehend no matter how much anyone tried.

There are no words to fully explain just how incredibly stupid and deluded you are. Even your friends couldn't do that because... they are as nonexistent as proof of denpressure.

How exactly are you supposed to seriously discuss and truly dumb idea that is 100% debunked?  There is nothing to support in it - not one thing.

If you think that, why are you here? You're evidently failing to convince FEers of anything, from where I'm sitting literally the only thing to do on this site that achieves anything is to simply sit down and hear what they have to say.
Sometimes I try to work out the answers from their perspective too, because it simply aids understanding. Repeating the same few arguments, as you do, mixed in with a generous helping of insults and accusations of mental illness don't exactly seem to be achieving anything.

Besides, ultimately what I'm doing is what you're doing: you're asking questions of denpressure to hear the answers. The only difference is that I listened to the answers, and decided to do some of the work in understanding myself. Plus I'm less rigorous, because like I've said I'm not concerned with the evidence, just what his model is.



To Scepti, now:
I saw a bit of discussion on the Sun, so if you're still interested in covering that topic, I've been wondering what the shape etc of the Sun was. Like, under some models it's a spotlight. And on a similar note, I think you said it rotates, I was wondering how?
You seemed to be discussing the topic before, so if you still want to I'm curious, though as ever I'll understand if you decide not to given how some of this thread has gone.

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 27, 2016, 02:20:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 04:23:25 PM

Depending on the structure you see would depend on how the jaw breakers are sized and layered.

The peeled layers between them would be tiny jaw breakers with much less layers of make up.
It all depends on where in the Earth they are and under what force of pressure or energy force of expansion.

So there are tiny jaw breakers between the "main" jawbreakers?

I'm done with you.

You first said:
"Like washing up bubbles, as an analogy."
Then you said:
"Each jaw breaker would have various peeled layers clung to them forming an interlocking structure."
Then:
"Not exactly. You have to look at them as jaw breakers of varying sizes among each other with peeled off layers filling the gaps between them."
And then:
"The peeled layers between them would be tiny jaw breakers with much less layers of make up."

All of these give a very different picture of the structure. I am sorry if it is hard to explain, but I have an advice to give you: Either make a diagram/picture, if you want to I can make one of how quarks form atoms that form molecules as well. Or, try to drop the analogies completely. Your analogies give too much room for interpretation (for me, at least) so it's really hard to know exactly what you mean. Just give a thorough, jargonised and detailed explanation of how it works, like I did first. I work a lot better with those kind of explanations.

To Scepti, now:
I saw a bit of discussion on the Sun, so if you're still interested in covering that topic, I've been wondering what the shape etc of the Sun was. Like, under some models it's a spotlight. And on a similar note, I think you said it rotates, I was wondering how?
You seemed to be discussing the topic before, so if you still want to I'm curious, though as ever I'll understand if you decide not to given how some of this thread has gone.

The shape of the energy that we see as the sun is an arc from the graphite electrode.
This arc is reflected off the dome and back to us.
The graphite is moving up and down like a ding dong doorbell would, due to on off energy, or basically a charge en reduce energy, or to be a bit more plain, a capacitor like energy.

This creates a breathing dome, or what would be thought of as that. It  lowers and heightens the pressure due to this breathing dome. It's the reason we have tides.

Now the key to how the sun moves around us is a trick of the eye. It's like a cinema motion picture.
Basically it's spinning around us so fast as a reflection that we see it as slow motion. Just like we would do if we were watching the effects of a fast moving reel of film portrayed to the cinema screen.

Of course, this is the utter basics and may or may not sink in. It's easy for it to be ridiculed but those that do will understand nothing. I have faith in you understanding most of what I say, regardless of whether any of it makes a reality of sense.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 27, 2016, 02:47:57 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 27, 2016, 02:20:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 04:23:25 PM

Depending on the structure you see would depend on how the jaw breakers are sized and layered.

The peeled layers between them would be tiny jaw breakers with much less layers of make up.
It all depends on where in the Earth they are and under what force of pressure or energy force of expansion.

So there are tiny jaw breakers between the "main" jawbreakers?

I'm done with you.

You first said:
"Like washing up bubbles, as an analogy."
Then you said:
"Each jaw breaker would have various peeled layers clung to them forming an interlocking structure."
Then:
"Not exactly. You have to look at them as jaw breakers of varying sizes among each other with peeled off layers filling the gaps between them."
And then:
"The peeled layers between them would be tiny jaw breakers with much less layers of make up."

All of these give a very different picture of the structure. I am sorry if it is hard to explain, but I have an advice to give you: Either make a diagram/picture, if you want to I can make one of how quarks form atoms that form molecules as well. Or, try to drop the analogies completely. Your analogies give too much room for interpretation (for me, at least) so it's really hard to know exactly what you mean. Just give a thorough, jargonised and detailed explanation of how it works, like I did first. I work a lot better with those kind of explanations.

Your explanations make no sense in terms of showing what's happening. It's just atoms this and that but nothing as to how they merge or what not.
Basically I get dancing atoms in free space just deciding what and when to do stuff. It's senseless.

We can see the sun rotate.



Of course, this is the utter basics and may or may not sink in. It's easy for it to be ridiculed but those that do will understand nothing. I have faith in you understanding most of what I say, regardless of whether any of it makes a reality of sense.

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 27, 2016, 02:57:15 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 27, 2016, 02:47:57 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 27, 2016, 02:20:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 04:23:25 PM

Depending on the structure you see would depend on how the jaw breakers are sized and layered.

The peeled layers between them would be tiny jaw breakers with much less layers of make up.
It all depends on where in the Earth they are and under what force of pressure or energy force of expansion.

So there are tiny jaw breakers between the "main" jawbreakers?

I'm done with you.

You first said:
"Like washing up bubbles, as an analogy."
Then you said:
"Each jaw breaker would have various peeled layers clung to them forming an interlocking structure."
Then:
"Not exactly. You have to look at them as jaw breakers of varying sizes among each other with peeled off layers filling the gaps between them."
And then:
"The peeled layers between them would be tiny jaw breakers with much less layers of make up."

All of these give a very different picture of the structure. I am sorry if it is hard to explain, but I have an advice to give you: Either make a diagram/picture, if you want to I can make one of how quarks form atoms that form molecules as well. Or, try to drop the analogies completely. Your analogies give too much room for interpretation (for me, at least) so it's really hard to know exactly what you mean. Just give a thorough, jargonised and detailed explanation of how it works, like I did first. I work a lot better with those kind of explanations.

Your explanations make no sense in terms of showing what's happening. It's just atoms this and that but nothing as to how they merge or what not.
Basically I get dancing atoms in free space just deciding what and when to do stuff. It's senseless.

IT's exactly what is happening. A bunch of *particles* that float around in space and do the stuff they want to do. Ok, so should we make diagrams for each other then? I think we would both benefit from it.

We can see the sun rotate.



Of course, this is the utter basics and may or may not sink in. It's easy for it to be ridiculed but those that do will understand nothing. I have faith in you understanding most of what I say, regardless of whether any of it makes a reality of sense.

It's this naivety that scares me about human beings.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 27, 2016, 03:42:24 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 27, 2016, 02:57:15 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 27, 2016, 02:47:57 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 27, 2016, 02:20:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 04:23:25 PM

Depending on the structure you see would depend on how the jaw breakers are sized and layered.

The peeled layers between them would be tiny jaw breakers with much less layers of make up.
It all depends on where in the Earth they are and under what force of pressure or energy force of expansion.

So there are tiny jaw breakers between the "main" jawbreakers?

I'm done with you.

You first said:
"Like washing up bubbles, as an analogy."
Then you said:
"Each jaw breaker would have various peeled layers clung to them forming an interlocking structure."
Then:
"Not exactly. You have to look at them as jaw breakers of varying sizes among each other with peeled off layers filling the gaps between them."
And then:
"The peeled layers between them would be tiny jaw breakers with much less layers of make up."

All of these give a very different picture of the structure. I am sorry if it is hard to explain, but I have an advice to give you: Either make a diagram/picture, if you want to I can make one of how quarks form atoms that form molecules as well. Or, try to drop the analogies completely. Your analogies give too much room for interpretation (for me, at least) so it's really hard to know exactly what you mean. Just give a thorough, jargonised and detailed explanation of how it works, like I did first. I work a lot better with those kind of explanations.

Your explanations make no sense in terms of showing what's happening. It's just atoms this and that but nothing as to how they merge or what not.
Basically I get dancing atoms in free space just deciding what and when to do stuff. It's senseless.

IT's exactly what is happening. A bunch of *particles* that float around in space and do the stuff they want to do. Ok, so should we make diagrams for each other then? I think we would both benefit from it.

Yeah, with explanations.
If you come back with copied stuff, I'm done with you for good.

Quote from: Omega on August 27, 2016, 03:52:12 AM

We can see the sun rotate.



Of course, this is the utter basics and may or may not sink in. It's easy for it to be ridiculed but those that do will understand nothing. I have faith in you understanding most of what I say, regardless of whether any of it makes a reality of sense.

It's this naivety that scares me about human beings.

Because... why exactly? There are many such time lapses. So now you see the sun rotate with your very eyes and that somehow is not proof that it rotates?

Of course, this is the utter basics and may or may not sink in. It's easy for it to be ridiculed but those that do will understand nothing.

Yeah, with explanations.
If you come back with copied stuff, I'm done with you for good.

Yeah.

Just a question, why would it matter if I took something someone else made instead of making the exact same thing they already did myself? I'm not gonna take someone else's, because I don't think someone has made a diagram involving quarks, nucleons, atoms and a molecule all in one.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 27, 2016, 01:39:46 AM

Interesting you say that.    What we call a vacuum pump only has to be able to move a cylinder against a small pressure of 15 pounds per square inch.

Move a cylinder?
Explain what you mean by move a cylinder?

Oops.  I meant move a piston.  A basic pump is just a piston going up and down in a cylinder with some valves.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 27, 2016, 01:39:46 AM

Highly effective vacuum pumps do NOT require strength.

So all evacuation pumps are the same strength then; is this what you're saying?

No.  Some pumps are more solidly built than others and some can pump out more air per second.   However, all pumps are only working with a very small pressure difference if they are expelling air into atmospheric pressure and there is no particular strength needed to do that.

The fact you say a strong pump will break the glass STRONGLY suggests there is something you do not understand.  Strong or weak the pumps are only working against the same small pressure difference between one atmosphere and whatever the pump can create.    Providing the glass can comfortably handle the small pressure difference it is not going to break because a low pressure difference of only 15 pounds per square inch is suddenly created.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 27, 2016, 01:39:46 AM

  What they require is the ability SOMEHOW to gain access to the available material where  an ordinary pump has ZERO ability to attract material to the vacuum pump.

Gain ACCESS to the available material? 

if the remaining particles of air are moving around in the glass container, or the tube that goes to the pump, the moving piston of an ordinary pump has no ability get hold of them.  All the piston can do is expel particles that are already in the cylinder.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 27, 2016, 01:39:46 AM

Vacuum pumps do not suck.   Instead the material finds its own way into the pump - or does not.

Tell me how it finds its way into the pump.

The best explanation we have for gas behaviour is the kinetic theory of gases which you will have heard of.      The gas particles are in rapid movement unless the temperature is reduced to absolute zero.  Gases move from one part of a container to another by diffusion.

So before particles can be removed from the cylinder they have to have travelled to the cylinder via their own random movement and remain there before the valve closes.

The ordinary vacuum pump has no ability to suck on the air or cause it to change direction or do anything at all.     The air does its own thing.    The ordinary pump does its thing.

And so if you take a piece of delicate glassware and it is comfortably capable of withstanding a vacuum, which is a small pressure difference between low pressure and one atmosphere, it does not matter what pump you connect it to, none of the pumps have any particular ability to create a force which can damage the glass, because the greatest force they can create is only a small 15 pounds per square inch.

We can see the sun rotate.



Of course, this is the utter basics and may or may not sink in. It's easy for it to be ridiculed but those that do will understand nothing. I have faith in you understanding most of what I say, regardless of whether any of it makes a reality of sense.

Amazing how you can hear the sun while you watch that!   

Quote from: Omega on August 27, 2016, 03:52:12 AM

We can see the sun rotate.

Of course, this is the utter basics and may or may not sink in. It's easy for it to be ridiculed but those that do will understand nothing. I have faith in you understanding most of what I say, regardless of whether any of it makes a reality of sense.

Amazing how you can hear the sun while you watch that!

Are you fucking retarded? It even says TIMELAPSE.
I timelaps consists of PICTURES taken in an intervall of e.g. 1minute. There is NO SOUND recorded since it is not a video.
Obviously, to make the timelaps more impressive, one can add any sound that seems to fit.

Quote from: Omega on August 27, 2016, 03:52:12 AM

We can see the sun rotate.



Of course, this is the utter basics and may or may not sink in. It's easy for it to be ridiculed but those that do will understand nothing. I have faith in you understanding most of what I say, regardless of whether any of it makes a reality of sense.

Amazing how you can hear the sun while you watch that!

Amazing how every time laps shows the same thing.



Oh wait, that is not amazing, that is evidence.

Of course, this is the utter basics and may or may not sink in. It's easy for it to be ridiculed but those that do will understand nothing.

So, this is a simple diagram (not to scale) of some hydrogen. The color triplets (red, green and blue) are quarks. They are in groups (denoted by a purple or yellow boundary) where they hold together. The purple ones are protons, they have a positive charge +1. The yellow ones are neutrons, they have no charge. In the bottom right corner, I have zoomed in on a proton and a neutron. Inside the proton and the neutron, the quarks switches colors with each other. This keeps them together. But sometimes a quark from the proton and a quark from the neutron does it, and that keeps them together as well.

Lone protons or groups of protons and neutrons are called atomic nuclei. Atomic nuclei has the same charge as the number of protons in them. For simplicity, all atomic nuclei have one proton in them, and therefore the charge +1. The gray dots are electrons. They have the charge -1. Electrical charges always want to equalize (reach a 0 in total), so the electrons are attracted to the atomic nuclei. All the atomic nuclei have the charge +1, so to reach zero each nuclei can take one electron (1-1=0). Now they have formed hydrogen atoms. But atomic nuclei are weird. They always want to have a certain amount of electrons around them to be stable, and having one electron is not stable. These nuclei want to have 2 electrons. So when two hydrogen atoms meet, they both have one electron each. What they do is that they move so close to each other that both atoms can feel as if they have two electrons, and they stay together like that. Now we have formed hydrogen molecules. Now, as you can see in the illustration the electrons of the top hydrogen molecule are both between the atoms (they don't have to be, but where they are is random). And in the bottom hydrogen molecule, the electrons are a bit above the atoms. This means that the bottom electrons can feel a bit of attraction towards the top hydrogen molecule. This is one way that molecules keep together (although this is the weakest one, since the top electrons can move back and repel the electrons of the bottom molecule)

Disclaimer: This is not everything. Once again, there's a lot more math and particles that play a role in this. This is just mostly everything that's needed to know why we have objects like trees and dirt etc.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 27, 2016, 04:30:00 AM

Quote from: Omega on August 27, 2016, 03:52:12 AM

We can see the sun rotate.



Of course, this is the utter basics and may or may not sink in. It's easy for it to be ridiculed but those that do will understand nothing. I have faith in you understanding most of what I say, regardless of whether any of it makes a reality of sense.

Amazing how you can hear the sun while you watch that!

Amazing how every time laps shows the same thing.



Oh wait, that is not amazing, that is evidence.

Of course, this is the utter basics and may or may not sink in. It's easy for it to be ridiculed but those that do will understand nothing.

Oh so you can hear the sun in all timelapses of the Sun and you know that for a fact?

Wow!